NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court in the case Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co Ltd observed and stated that the litigant should not be made to suffer because of the fault of counsel. The court stated that the party should not suffer due only to the counsel’s fault. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing the present plea against the judgement of NCDRC, which denied the insurance claim. In the present case, it has previously been held by the NCDRC that since the complaint was withdrawn, no fresh complaint could have been filed, as it was barred under Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, CPC. The counsel, Advocate Surender Kumar Gulia, appearing before the district forum, stated that he did not want to proceed with his case. Thus, it was disposed of, and the district forum recorded his statement of withdrawal. Therefore, the claimant in the case filed the claim recording his statement of withdrawal. The court observed that the complaint was to be withdrawn by the complainant’s advocate on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, and without express instructions for withdrawal, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Further, the court observed that the complaint could not be thrown out on the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1907, and in the peculiar facts, it requires consideration on merits. The appellant, being the owner of a truck with a valid insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 8,40,000 from 2008 to 2009, had his vehicle stolen when the driver left the key on and got off the vehicle on 26.06.2008. An FIR was filed, and the respondent was informed about the theft to claim insurance. A complaint was filed before the district forum, which awarded him 75% of the assured sum on a nonstandard basis. The State commission affirmed the same, and the claim was rejected by the NCDRC. Accordingly, he approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved with the same.